Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Education Bill

Clause 171 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 172 - Training and education provided in the workplace for 14 to 16 year olds

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 555, in page 99, line 37, at end insert:
'(2A) In section 6 (financial resources: conditions)— 
 after subsection (6) there is inserted 
 ''(7) Regulations may be made under this section making provision requiring any person to whom resources are provided under section 5(1)(ea) to satisfy conditions relating to any matter referred to in subsections (3), (4) or (5) of this section or to any other matter as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.''.'
 I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. This is the last morning sitting and, perhaps with a bit of luck, the last sitting of the Committee. 
 These two amendments are important.

Peter Pike: Order. We are debating only amendment No. 555.

Phil Willis: I was trying to move swiftly, but I bow to your chairmanship as ever, Mr. Pike.
 Amendment No. 555 deals, importantly, with financial resources for 14 to 16-year-olds who may be in the workplace for part of their education and training. The Liberal Democrats support the principle of the clause, which fits in with our thinking in relation to the 14-to-19 continuum. We must look for other routes for young people, and the Government are right to ensure that employers become part of the solution. We have often regarded education as separate from employment, and never the twain shall meet. One of the saddest features of curriculum provision since the Education Reform Act 1987 is that the curriculum has been seen as ''one size fits all''. Although there have been attempts to move away from that, that is generally how schools view the curriculum, and it has been difficult to get young people into the workplace. 
 However, hon. Members will know that there is work experience and work experience, and employers and employers, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) found. If the scheme is to work, we must ensure that there is quality. We must ensure that it is not just a method of getting young people out of school and putting them somewhere else because they were difficult to manage in the school setting, as sadly it so often used to be. The amendment would ensure that the provision was properly resourced and of sufficient quality. 
 The Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee was set up by the Secretary of State and chaired by Sir John Cassels to prepare advice for the Government on this issue. The conclusions of its ''Way to Work'' report made depressing reading. The evidence made it clear that young people do not choose the vocational route as they do not see it as option, and parents do not see it as worth while. Part of the problem is that our education system is hierarchical. Certain levels of academia are seen as more important than others. Sadly, many careers advisers also share that view. Worse still, so do employers. Sir John Cassels made it clear in his report that there was a problem. 
 Completion rates for people who take the NVQ level 1 route rather than the GSCE route are also poor. Only 41 per cent. of young people complete NVQ at foundation level and only 49 per cent.—less than half—at advanced level. There is a challenge for, not only the Government, but all of us interested in making this area work. It is interesting to make comparisons with Germany, where two thirds of young people aged 14 to 19 become involved in vocational training with great success. In Denmark about one in three young people are in vocational training. Ninety per cent. complete the courses and gain worthwhile qualifications. We must ask what we are not doing right. 
 The 1998 inspections highlighted the problems affecting the sector: weak initial assessment of provision; poor induction of young people on to the courses; and poor tackling of key skills, which was a bit hit and miss. Where provision was properly inspected and there was a proper regime pointing out to colleges and employers how the courses could be improved, 90 per cent. of all provision improved radically. It is not beyond us to achieve a good solution. That is the principle of the amendment. I hope that the Minister can accept it. If he cannot accept it in its current form, I hope that he will ensure that an amendment to deal with the problem is tabled on Report. 
 I should like to ask the Minister four questions. First, if students transfer to a further education college at 14-plus, as is envisaged through the legislation, and then go on an employment related NVQ-type course, does the further education college look after that provision for them or does it remain with the host institution; the school? 
 The second question is about costs, which is an important issue. I suspect that in parts of the country it will be particularly pertinent. Who is going to pick up the costs? Will it be the Learning and Skills Council—in which case, will it be additionality—or will it be like post-16 funding where it is taken away from local education authority budgets and then transferred back? If this is to be another slice out of LEA budgets, it is important for us to know now so that we do not have the debacle currently occurring in school sixth-form funding, where there is huge under-provision in many areas, and over-provision in others. Some areas and schools have done better out of the new arrangements than others, depending on how LEAs funded the provision previously. 
 When we were debating the Learning and Skills Bill, the Government made a commitment—of this I am sure—that there would be no incursion by the Learning and Skills Council into the compulsory school age sector. There was a clear guarantee of a demarcation between the work of the Learning and Skills Council post-16, or post-compulsory, and that of local education authorities and schools before that. Now, however, we are talking about a change in that policy. To be fair, the change is in the Bill; it has not been hidden. My party and I are fairly relaxed about the change, but it opens the door for the LSC to take over the whole 14-to-19 funding regime. 
 My third question is whether that is the Government's intention. Are they saying that, with the 14-to-19 reforms, it would be logical to place all post-14 provision in the hands of the LSC, avoiding the to-ing and fro-ing that has taken place, particularly between school sixth forms and the LSC? I understand that logicality. 
 Fourthly, I appreciate that we are talking about young people in their last year of compulsory schooling, including in Wales. We do not want to exclude the Welsh from these wonderful provisions—although I have forgotten all about Cardiff since the team lost its next game. Will employers be able to draw down, say, the current LSC funding of post-16 students, which is £2,600, to support work-based training? If not, how will they be paid and by whom? 
 I generally support what the Government are doing, but some issues need to be addressed. I hope that quality and funding will be at the heart of these measures, rather than an added extra.

Stephen Timms: I welcome you to the Chair of the final morning sitting, Mr. Pike.
 I welcome the support expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for the changes that the Government are making, particularly the prospect of opening up work-based learning for young people from the age of 14. That will be a way to enthuse some young people and engage them in learning. Currently, far too many people switch off from learning much too early. 
 I agree that there is a big challenge and much to do, but I do not agree that the report by Sir John Cassels is depressing. It identifies the challenge to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, but it also presents an optimistic vision of how things could be in future. The report was well received, achieving a high level of consensus on its proposed way forward. It is now within our reach to effect fundamental changes that benefit many young people. 
 On the amendment, I hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that we already have all the levers that we need to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council acts in accordance with our policy priorities. In particular, the annual grant letter goes to the LSC, and other guidance is provided from time to time. Under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can back that up if 
 necessary with directions to the LSC on achieving objectives. 
 It is important to ensure that there is good-quality workplace provision, but that concern does not arise only in connection with that aspect of the LSC's activity; it applies to the LSC's activities across the board. The way in which the LSC is set up under the 2000 Act gives the Secretary of State the necessary levers to assure that quality in all parts of its activity. It would be slightly odd to introduce the regulation-making power for that element of the LSC budget, which will always be a relatively small part of the overall budget. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked several questions. First, who would have overall responsibility for a child—I presume that he means a child at school—going into work-based learning. The answer is the school. There is no requirement to interpose an FE college between the school and the workplace. We envisage direct collaboration between schools and workplaces with the school retaining overall responsibility for what happens to the child. The cost of the provision could be met from the LSC budget or the school might contribute to it from the school budget, depending on the local arrangement. We do not propose a transfer of resources of the kind that we have seen with sixth forms, but we are considering the funding of mixed programmes. The issue will be looked at in the Green Paper, which as the hon. Gentleman knows, will be published before long. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked about our intentions on the funding of 14-to-16 learning and whether we envisage the prospect of an LSC takeover in that area. I can give him the clear assurance that we have no intention of removing from LEAs the clear lead responsibility for funding 14-to-16 learning for the great majority of young people. Most 14 to 16-year-olds will continue to spend most of their time in schools funded by LEAs. We do not envisage the wholesale transfer about which the hon. Gentleman was asking. His final question was whether employers could draw down the sum of money to which he referred. The answer is that they could well do so, but I envisage a variety of local arrangements and funding sources being drawn down. There should be no barrier against the sort of drawing down to which he referred. 
 I hope that I have been able to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unnecessary. I agree with him about the importance of ensuring quality in future provision for 14 to 16-year-olds; the levers that we need to provide that reassurance are already in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for addressing those issues. It has been a useful debate and has highlighted what is likely to be an extremely bureaucratic process. The Learning and Skills Council will possibly, although not necessarily, pay the employer and provide some funds to the school. The LEA will keep the prime responsibility, as will the school. The school will then have to pay the employer, or possibly not. Clarification is needed and I hope that
 the Minister will reflect on that and perhaps give us written assurance on those points.
 I failed to raise one issue and I should be grateful if the Minister could respond. One of the great problems of implementing the scheme in rural areas is that there are often no employers or significantly fewer employers than in large urban areas. Increasingly, the cost of travel to placements becomes a major issue. Would the Minister give an assurance that the travel costs for students attending work placements under the scheme will be met by the LSC and not fall on to schools' budgets?

Stephen Timms: I will answer the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Phil Willis: I do not want to sit down before the Minister can respond. Subject to his response, I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Timms: Let me just respond to both the hon. Gentleman's points. I do not agree that this needs to be a bureaucratic arrangement. It should be possible for local arrangements to be made and for the most appropriate arrangement to be put in place, rather than heavy-handed, central prescription about how all this can work. It does not need to be bureaucratic and I hope that it will not be.
 I recognise the importance of travel costs. The Government certainly do not intend to introduce a scheme that imposes unreasonable costs on those taking part in workplace learning. We need to address that when we spell out more fully how the arrangements will work.

Phil Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 556, in page 100, line 5, after '1996', insert—
'(11) The powers of the Secretary of State and the Chief Inspector under this section shall not be exercisable with the consequence that a school at which pupils of compulsory school age are registered shall be subject to inspection as part of an area inspection and to inspection under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996 at intervals of eighteen months or less.'.
 This is another important amendment and I hope that the Minister's response will provide some clarification. We all accept the need for effective inspection. It makes an important contribution to raising the quality in schools, colleges and work placements. The amendment attempts to ensure that schools, colleges and work placements are not over inspected. The Bill introduces for the first time into the 14-to-16 sector the ability of the adult learning inspectorate to inspect parts of compulsory schooling. It also enables area inspection, as introduced by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, to come into play. Ofsted inspections take place once every four years—six, if it is a light touch inspection—or more often for a school in special measures. Under the current regulations, Ofsted accept that after section 10 inspections, primary schools should be exempt from a second inspection for a minimum of nine months. That is written into the organisational framework. Why is that not extended to the secondary sector? 
 The amendment would prevent the over-inspection of schools. One of the problems of area inspections, by definition, is that they inspect a particular type of course in several institutions simultaneously to establish parity of quality and other arrangements. That is right and reasonable. However, in practice, particular institutions—such as further education institutions—that offer a plethora of different courses could undergo an area inspection, in which Ofsted and the adult learning inspectorate carry out inspections on different courses every day of the week, 365 days a year. 
 The amendment would avoid the same situation arising in schools. If the Bill is successful, and I hope that it is, we may find in certain schools that many key stage 4 pupils are involved in such an approach to their education, training and learning. They might be involved in different schemes, from motor vehicle mechanics to engineering, or from transport to tourism, all of which could be subject to area inspections. The amendment would ensure that Ofsted, area or ALI inspections do not take place unless an 18-month interval separates them. If that interval is not observed, the life of the school is disrupted. 
 We are not opposed to the proposals, but when an area inspection examines an engineering course, part of which might be offered in a workplace, it cannot inspect that part of the course without considering other systems in the school. That creates a burden on the whole school, because it has to meet the inspection's requirements. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I trust that the Minister will support its tenor, if not its wording. 
 A concern arose during the individual learning accounts debacle. I do not want to cause any embarrassment, but it was good to see the Department admit that it was of its own making. [Interruption.] Such an admission is not embarrassing: it is good for the soul. Before work-based training is accepted, we must ensure that the placement is right, rather than inspecting it after the training has started and finding faults. Will the Minister assure the Committee that sufficient powers will exist to ensure that the placements are inspected before young people begin them?

Stephen Timms: The aim of Ofsted—an aim shared by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—is to prevent over burdening schools with inspections. Mike Tomlinson, the chief inspector, has done a good deal to reduce the burdens associated with inspection, and is looking for ways of taking it further. In 2001, Ofsted carried out a review of those burdens with my Department's standards and effectiveness unit. I believe that the nine-month period for primary schools was one of the results of that review.
 Mike Tomlinson recommended that, after a section 10 inspection, schools should be guaranteed a period during which there would be no other inspection visits. 
 The period for secondary schools is 12 weeks. That is shorter than the time for primary schools because 
 Ofsted needs to carry out thematic inspections. Since there are fewer secondary schools than primary schools, if it is carrying out a thematic inspection, it is not possible to offer the same length of time as for primary schools. However, the aspiration is one that Ofsted shares, and it will be doing what it can to avoid any difficulties. 
 The chief inspector fully recognises that the extension of the scope of area inspections to include provision from age 14 must not result in a significant increase in the overall inspection burden on secondary schools. Schools will be visited during area inspections only where it is necessary to enable inspectors to obtain the evidence that they need, and that would not otherwise be available to them. Those visits will be as brief as possible, and certainly much shorter than the full section 10 inspection. 
 During consultations last autumn on the future arrangements for school inspections, Ofsted suggested that section 10 inspections of secondary schools in an area might be linked to provide evidence to feed into subsequent area inspections, avoiding a second visit to those schools. That is an idea that Ofsted will be exploring further in the coming months. 
 The problem with the amendment is that it would constrain the ability of inspectors to do their job effectively. In some instances there might be very good reasons why an 18-month interval between a section 10 inspection and an area inspection would be undesirable. It would not, for example, be right for inspectors to have to delay an inspection of a school that was causing concern simply because there had been a recent area inspection, which may have looked only briefly at the school in question. 
 The aspiration is one that the chief inspector and I share. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the arrangements for area inspections, as with school inspections more generally, will take account of the need to keep the burdens on those being inspected to a minimum. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the firm 18-month gap suggested by the amendment is too inflexible, given some of the circumstances that would undoubtedly arise from time to time.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for responding so comprehensively to this amendment. I am also grateful to him for recognising that there is a genuine issue about over inspection. I support his view that the last chief inspector—who, having recommended that LEAs should be privatised, is now going to Hackney to head up a privatised LEA—has done a great deal to move towards a much more sensible arrangement for inspections. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment by leave withdrawn. 
 Clause 172 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 174 - Inspection of LEAs: rights of entry etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: I wish to ask a few questions about subsection (2) of the proposed new section 40 of the Education Act 1997. The notes on clauses refer to the need to allow access to the premises of the local education authority for inspection. Is there a distinction in law between the premises of the LEA and premises of the local authority? As we know, certain functions of many LEAs are undertaken by different parts of the parent local authority; for example, personnel functions, which relate directly to the provision of the education service. Does the clause include rights of access to those premises and records?

Stephen Timms: Let me take this opportunity to correct an impression given by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough a moment ago about the movements of the chief inspector, Mike Tomlinson. Under a mechanism that we agreed and developed with Hackney council, he will take up the position of chair of the new trust that is to be set up in Hackney. He is not moving into the private sector, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Phil Willis: The Minister is always helpful.

Stephen Timms: Clause 174 amends the rights of entry for inspectors and for anyone assisting them. At present, inspectors have rights of entry only to the premises of the local education authority and the schools that it maintains, but the scope of inspections extends to educational provision beyond such premises. The need for clause 174 is clear.
 Among the LEA functions that are scrutinised in inspections are arrangements for education away from school for children who, for a variety of reasons, would not otherwise receive suitable education. The clause extends the right of entry to any premises, other than private houses, on which such education is provided under arrangements made by the LEA. Some of our most troubled and vulnerable children receive education other than at school under arrangements of an obvious nature, and it is right that inspectors should be able to inspect such premises to ensure that LEAs are making appropriate arrangements for the education of those children. The clause brings inspectors' rights of entry for LEA inspections fully into line with those for other inspections. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked about the distinction in law between the premises of the LEA and the premises of the local authority. There is no such distinction. The two are the same body, and it is not possible to make a distinction between their premises. The clause covers both, so I am able to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that reassurance. Would he take it one step further and consider a local education authority that had privatised the management of its payroll system through an organisation such as Capita? Would the
 inspector have the right of access to Capita's premises, which are certainly not covered by proposed new section 40(2), but may be covered elsewhere in the Bill?

Stephen Timms: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (3), which provides:
''The inspector . . . shall also have at all reasonable times a right to inspect and take copies of . . . any records kept by, and any other documents containing information relating to, the local education authority or any school maintained by the authority''.
 The ability to examine the record, which would be required in the circumstances that he envisaged, is covered by that wording. It will cover every need of which I can think, and I hope that he will be reassured by that. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 174 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 175 - Allowances in respect of education or training

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 536, in page 104, line 10, after 'allowance', insert
'(this determination may relate to the personal circumstances of the person but not to the locality where that person resides).'.
 I add my welcome to you, Mr. Pike. 
 The amendment would provide that when allowances are paid to individuals in respect of education or training, the regulations that specify the criteria for approving payments may relate to the personal circumstances of the individual concerned, but not the locality in which he or she resides. By way of brief background, the Committee should consider the several schemes that have been promoted by the Government. Their purpose—to improve the opportunities of people in an underprivileged position who may have little access to information technology equipment or find it harder to afford to remain in full-time education—was commendable, and in many instances they were welcomed by the individuals involved. 
 However, in schemes such as those that provide education maintenance allowances or assist in the purchase of computer equipment for individuals who might not otherwise be able to afford it, the criteria were framed around the local government ward in which the person resided. I have some experience of those schemes in my constituency, which ranges from one or two of the most affluent wards in north England to Manchester overspill council estates on the Sale, West side. I have seen real injustice arising through that approach. People whose circumstances were clearly difficult enough for any reasonable person to think that they would warrant inclusion in such a scheme were denied access purely because of their address, not their circumstances. 
 This is a simple point. If a scheme is avowedly intended to help individuals who are in difficulty, it is a manifest injustice for people to be prevented from benefiting because of their locality. I hope that Ministers will accept the principle that lies behind amendment No. 536 and realise that this is not a fair way of deciding the distribution of funds.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman will know that we introduced education maintenance allowances on a pilot basis in September 1999, initially in 15 local authorities and in a further 41 a year later. We will be evaluating the impact of those allowances on participation in post-16 education. The indications so far have been encouraging, with a typical five percentage point higher level of participation in areas where the allowances have been introduced, compared with other areas. It is important to emphasise that it is a pilot scheme. Before we go further we want to ensure that we are confident about its impact and that the substantial funding involved is warranted by the benefits in terms of higher participation.
 If, on the basis of that evaluation, a decision is made to extend the availability of the allowances, we will consider national entitlement. However, at this stage we cannot rule out targeting pockets of disadvantage through the scheme. It is more likely that a difficulty with the amendment may arise in the possible phasing of a national roll-out. Any such arrangement, including the current one, inevitably causes difficulty at the boundary, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Education maintenance allowances are available on a local authority basis, not a separate ward basis. Nevertheless, boundary issues arise. Any phased roll-out with introduction dates at different times for different areas would inevitably involve awkwardness. However, we would not want to rule out its possibility in legislation. The amendment would remove that option and the flexibility that it affords us. 
 I agree that partial geographic coverage is difficult. Once it has been properly evaluated, we want the pilot to come to a conclusion so that we can make a decision about the allowances on a national basis. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that the constraint that the amendment would introduce might be unhelpful in some circumstances, and that he will withdraw it.

Graham Brady: I suppose that I was flying a kite with the amendment, but it is a worthwhile kite that I am pleased to have flown. I am grateful to the Minister for his guarded comments, which went a little way towards agreeing with my point. I leave him to consider, as he contemplates—without wishing to go too far into new Labour jargon—a phased roll-out of the programme to tackle social exclusion, that the social exclusion of a single mother living on benefits and supporting three children in a relatively prosperous, affluent area may be at least as great as, and possibly greater than that of a person in comparable circumstances in a less affluent area.
 From the perspective of a constituent of mine who lives yards away from the local authority border, where Manchester city council is the local authority, it would appear to be grossly unjust to see an allowance made available to support the child of a neighbour down the road in continuing his education where that same benefit was not available to her child.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend has made a good case. If the Government will not accept the amendment, it
 would be helpful if they provided objective criteria for the selection of areas that would benefit under the scheme.

Graham Brady: That would be helpful. I do not intend to press the point any further, but I would be grateful if the Minister considered our points and provided clearer guidance on the circumstances in which the provisions may be used. I hope that he will take on board my concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Grayling: I have not sought to table an amendment to subsection (2), but I would draw the Minister's attention to its apparent incongruity. He will be aware that many institutions offer a mix of education to a variety of young people. I cite the examples of North East Surrey college of technology in my constituency, and Merton college, where I was a governor. NESCOT offers higher education courses, as part of an affiliation to Surrey university, and it offers a wide range of vocational courses, some of which fall under the umbrella of further education. It also offers a diverse range of vocational training courses connected to different professions, careers and opportunities. The clause could create a financial division in such institutions.
 The Government may press ahead with an allowance system for 16 to 19-year-olds in vocational training. However, those in higher education could end up paying for their courses and subsistence costs, while those in the next classroom were being paid to be in that institution. The Government must think carefully before developing a system of allowances. Although they are rightly keen to stress the importance of inclusion in our education system, we must not include financial support for one group at the expense of another. 
 The Government are focused on increasing the number of people in higher education from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. Much of that increase will not come by admitting extra students into Oxford, Cambridge, Durham or Bristol, or any mainstream universities. It is more likely to come through the expansion of higher education courses in local colleges such as NESCOT. It will come through the provision of varied higher education courses that meet the needs of local employers and populations. Through that process, the dividing line between further education and higher education will become increasingly blurred. The Government need to think carefully before they stipulate that the relevant educational training must not be higher education. If they plan to increase the number of students in higher education to 50 per cent., they will not be able to make such clear distinctions. The Minister should be cautious about that.

Stephen Timms: I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. There is a well-established system of higher education student support. As he will know, we are considering those details. Until the allowances
 were proposed, there was no arrangement for supporting young people who were over compulsory school age but who were not yet in higher education. Compared with other countries, we have strikingly low rates of participation among young people. In 1998, there were proportionally fewer 17-year-olds in education in Britain than in any other OECD country except Turkey, Mexico and Greece. No one would suggest that that is how things should be. We need to be doing better in bringing more young people just over compulsory school age into education. The allowances are one of the ways that we have considered to achieve that, and we look forward to the full evaluation of their impact.

David Miliband: What are the main drivers of low participation? The Minister naturally focuses on the allowance system and the financial incentives, but the strongest predictor of post-16 participation is success at GCSE level. That implies that the reforms to secondary education and the improvement in standards in education for young people up to 15 may have as much effect on post-16 participation as direct financial incentives, if not more.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The answer is that many factors are involved. There is a culture among too many young people and their parents in this country that education finishes at 16. We want to change that and to encourage people to think of the period up to 19 as one in which they learn. We also hope that many more will go on to higher education. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of doing well at GCSE level and the consequent raising of standards in the secondary system. Our proposals will allow that to happen.

Chris Grayling: The Minister is talking about an option for an 18-year-old to go into higher education and study a course provided by a local college that is more vocational than used to be available, or to go into further education. However, there is currently no practical financial support for a student in higher education. Students take out a loan or pay for the course themselves. There is a danger that if there is an option to take up an allowance for a lesser course, or no such option for an HE course, that makes it more difficult to get those pupils who might not have gone into higher education to do so in the future.

Stephen Timms: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There is the well-established system of student support for those taking part in higher education. That is different in character from the one that we envisage, but it is not the case that there is no support. The dichotomy that he presents does not arise. However, we want to increase participation in the immediately post-compulsory schooling years, and we are considering allowances as a way of achieving that.

Graham Brady: Does the Minister accept that evidence suggests that post-16 participation rates tend to be higher where there is a school sixth form, and does he endorse the tremendous role of school sixth forms in helping to ensure that children stay on in education in post-compulsory school years?

Stephen Timms: I am happy to endorse and support the tremendous contribution of school sixth forms, sixth form colleges and further education colleges. There is a diversity of provision throughout the country, and that is how it should be. The current education maintenance allowances cannot be taken up after the age of 17. That also prevents the difficulty about which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was concerned.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 175 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 176 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 177 - Transfer of functions relating to allowances under section 175

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 296, in page 106, line 10, leave out from 'authority' to end of line.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 297.

Stephen Timms: These are technical amendments that would allow the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to transfer functions relating to maintenance allowances to an LEA. At the moment, the pilots are run by LEAs. That would be one of the options for a national scheme. As it stands, the clause qualifies LEA with the words
''for the purposes of the Education Act 1996''.
 That qualification is unnecessary and could also imply a limitation on our ability to delegate a function to local level. I am sure that members of the Committee would agree that we would not want inadvertently to rule out LEAs from this role. The amendments ensure that we will not do so. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 297, in page 106, line 17, leave out from 'authority' to end of line.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Graham Brady: In the event of the maintenance allowance structure being rolled out nationally, with the possibility of the function relating to the payment of allowances being transferred to local education authorities, does the Minister expect that local authorities would disburse funds according to criteria set out on a national basis in regulations or would there be a discretionary element in the way in which they would use the funds?

Stephen Timms: I envisage a national framework for the allowances scheme. Several candidates could be the operators of the national scheme: the LEAs, the Benefits Agency or the Student Loans Company, for example. I do not rule out the possibility of local discretion on the working of the scheme, but a national framework, with possible local variations, would be introduced to apply across the country.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 177, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 178 and 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 180 - Student loans

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 550, in page 107, line 35, after second 'of' insert
'amounts payable in respect of'.
 This is a technical amendment. The clause gives powers to pay off the student loans of individuals who meet criteria set in regulations and enables us to put into place our proposals to pay off over time the outstanding student loans of new shortage subject teachers from September this year. The amendment would clear up any uncertainty that might arise about whether subsection (1)(a) could allow the repayment of interest accrued on a teacher's student loan, as well as the face value of the loan. I want to make it very clear to the Committee that it is our intention that the scheme would allow repayment of the face value of the loan, and of the interest accrued. This amendment is here in order to put that beyond doubt. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 533, ''in page 108, line 7, after
'regulations', insert ',according to criteria which may include the nature of employment undertaken by a person, or that person's income but not the type of school within which a person is employed.'.''
 We are moving into an increasingly diverse pattern of educational provision, with education being provided and paid for both independently and through the academies model, which is provided by independent schools funded by the state. 
 The amendment seeks to probe the Government's attitude towards the teaching profession. It seeks to rectify an anomaly whereby, for the purposes of clause 180 as it appears in the explanatory notes, the repayment or reduction of student loans as an incentive for those entering the teaching profession is applicable only to those taking up positions in maintained schools. The contention of amendment No. 533 is that teaching is an indivisible profession. One may embark upon a career in a maintained school, then move to an independent school, transfer from that to an academy in a difficult inner-city area, taking on all the challenges that that entails, and then move back to the maintained sector. One may change between maintained schools and independent schools on any number of occasions during a career.

Phil Willis: This is a mythical journey.

Graham Brady: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to consider that it might be beneficial if it were not a mythical journey. Perhaps this movement is something that should be encouraged. It might be beneficial to have more movement between maintained and independent schools, particularly as we have the development of a category of state-funded independent schools, which to some extent blurs the distinction between the two categories.
 If a person chooses to enter the teaching profession—the noble pursuit of educating children—is there a fundamental difference between teaching in a maintained school, an independent school or an academy? In terms of the explanatory notes, does the Minister anticipate that the limitation to repay loans would be restricted only to maintained schools and would not cover those teaching in academies? By excluding independent schools, is he excluding state-funded independent schools? That would certainly seem odd, even if he were of the view that only those schools that are financed from the Exchequer would qualify. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. 
 During earlier stages of the Committee's deliberations we touched on the way in which the Government are keen to foster links between independent schools and maintained schools. As that process develops, as I hope it will, surely the increased movement of staff between schools will also develop. Surely it is unfair and anomalous for someone to be treated in a worse way in respect of pay and conditions or the golden hello—however Ministers want to phrase it—because they began their career in one school rather than another. The crucial point is that they are a teacher who is developing a career in the teaching profession. That consideration, not the nature of the institution in which someone teaches, should qualify or disqualify them for the assistance.

Stephen Timms: We have no interest in funding recruitment and retention incentives for teachers in private schools or colleges. The hon. Gentleman speaks about teachers transferring between sectors, which of course they are at liberty to do, but it would not be appropriate for the Government effectively to provide subsidies to make it easier for teachers to move from the state-funded sector to the private sector.
 The scheme in the Bill is part of a strategy to recruit high-quality teachers of shortage subjects to maintained schools and further education and to keep them there. We must be able to tailor eligibility requirements to the type of institution in which the teacher is working, so that we can focus the scheme on the eligible shortage subjects. 
 All maintained schools will come within the parameters of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right that academies are technically independent schools, so we also propose to include teachers in non-maintained special schools, city technology colleges and city academies, in line with our policy of putting all those institutions on an equal footing with maintained schools. We propose to cover publicly funded further education colleges and further education lecturers working in higher education institutions. We shall consult on those proposals shortly, but it would not be right, and the Government certainly do not intend, to extend the scheme to teachers working in the private sector. 
 The amendment would insert a reference to determining eligibility for the measure on the basis of a teacher's income, but we do not intend to base 
 qualification on income. All new teachers of shortage subjects who enter teaching from September 2002 will have their loans repaid provided that they meet all the eligibility criteria set out in the policy statement that Committee members have seen. The intention is that those who work full-time will have all their outstanding loans repaid over a period of up to 10 years and that those who work part-time will receive a pro-rata benefit.

Graham Brady: The Minister has answered many of my questions, but I should like to press him further on one point. If a maintained school buys in services, either from a company or an independent school offering educational services that might include the provision of teaching in the maintained school, will the provisions apply?

Stephen Timms: No, they will not. The provisions apply only to employees of the type of schools that I described. The amendment would prevent us from introducing the scheme in the form that we propose, but that form will have the maximum impact on teacher supply in shortage subjects, where there are serious pressures. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman feels that the scheme will make a valuable contribution to arrangements for school children and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. This has been an interesting if brief debate. In a year or two, as more independent schools are funded by the state and Ministers use powers under clause 13 to reintroduce free places at independent schools and the boundaries between the state and the independent sectors become increasingly blurred, the Minister may want to reconsider this. For the time being I am content. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 180, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 181 - Education action zones

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: In earlier conversations about education action zones the Minister emphasised that they are not closing yet. There is no provision for them to close at all. Why has the Minister not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to provide for their closure? Indeed, it may be the wish of some education action zones to close earlier than the Minister desires. There appear to be no provisions for closure anywhere and there will clearly be assets and liabilities.

Stephen Timms: We had an exchange about this at an earlier sitting. There are no provisions in the Bill for the closure of education action zones because they are contained in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which is the legislation that established them. I made the point that it was always intended that the zones would have a fixed life. They were never intended to go on indefinitely. They were originally
 established for three years and, as the 1998 Act allows, they have all been extended for five years. The Secretary of State will make a separate order in respect of each zone. The arrangements that we talked about last time will be in place to ensure that the zones will close down in an orderly way.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 181 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 16 agreed to. 
 Clause 182 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 - Amendments of School Inspections Act 1996

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 557, in page 175, line 16, at end insert—
'In section 2(7) of that Act after paragraph (a) there is inserted— 
 ''(b) shall at least once in each period of five years commencing upon the coming into effect of this Act carry out a review of the system and framework of inspection and report thereon to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament.'.
 This is a brief amendment and I am sure that the Minister will agree to it readily. This picks up a recommendation that was made by the Minister's good friend, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who would like his job. As chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills he produced a report on Ofsted. One of the report's most interesting recommendations was that there should be a quinquennial review of Ofsted. That was a serious suggestion. Ofsted was introduced 10 years ago. It was interesting to note that in November, when Ofsted appeared before the Select Committee, the chief inspector said that he saw no need to alter its fundamental structure. The organisation began in such hostility a decade ago and has embedded itself in the education system. 
 Most commentators, professional associations, heads and teachers accept the need for a rigorous, independent inspection system. However, there is a need to create a structure that is in tune with the thinking of the Government—and, I believe, all political parties—who want a new, more vigorous, innovative, dynamic and diverse education system. Instead, we continue with an Ofsted framework that remains largely unchanged since its origin, although I accept that its style changed substantially, particularly under Mike Tomlinson, to the benefit of the entire system. 
 The Select Committee's view was that Parliament should have an opportunity every five years to review the structure and effectiveness of Ofsted. All organisations, including those that are created for the purpose of audit and inspection, should be subject to regular scrutiny to ensure that they are effective and that they change with the education system. That view was shared by some, but not all hon. Members. The former hon. Member for Guildford, Mr. St. Aubyn, who has moved on to better things, objected to any changes in the Ofsted system. 
 The Liberal Democrat party prefers a self-evaluation process at the heart of school 
 improvement. Most modern companies and organisations do not wait for the auditors or an inspector to come in every year, or every two, four or six years; that is a thing of the past. They try to achieve constant, incremental improvement, and the concept of total quality management affects every activity. Our vision is that a modern Ofsted would have as its prime function inspecting the inspection and audit systems of the schools, which should vigorously and constantly examine and question what they are doing. 
 A five-yearly review would enable the House of Commons to examine openly the work of this important body and make necessary recommendations. That would be good for Ofsted, the parliamentary system of scrutiny and our schools, which would see that the body that inspects them is also inspected.

Andrew Turner: Can the hon. Gentleman assist me—I do not have to hand a copy of the School Inspections Act 1996—by explaining on whom the responsibility would fall?

Phil Willis: The responsibility would fall on Parliament. Any organisation that changes its terms of reference should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament in an affirmative resolution; the hon. Gentleman may disagree with that. A quinquennial review of Ofsted would fall into that category. Far too many organisations that have been set up in the gift of the Government or as quangos never come under parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment would provide for such scrutiny.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for endorsing the statement made recently by the Leader of the Opposition about putting such appointments in the hands of Parliament. I wonder whether he has in mind that the Select Committee should be responsible for auditing and reviewing the performance of the inspection body. In which case, does he agree that it is vital for us to see an improvement in the means of selecting the members and, particularly, the Chairmen of Select Committees? Such selection should have been taken out of the hands of Government Whips in the way that the Liaison Committee recommended last year, but the Government would not let the House debate it.

Phil Willis: I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, because he is fine fellow, but this time I agree wholeheartedly. He made the serious point, as did the Liaison Committee, that if we want to return to a situation in which the Select Committees are genuine scrutiny bodies, they must have an air of independence that they do not have at the moment. The Education and Skills Committee is a classic example. There is not the necessary rigour, as we saw recently with the light touch way in which Ministers got off the hook over individual learning accounts. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.] Conservative Members should not shout too loudly because it is bad for my image.
 I urge the Government to accept the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has moved the amendment. He is right to suggest that organisations that are set up by Parliament, and called quangos by
 the disrespectful among us, should be reviewed from time to time. I will first refer back to my intervention and his answer, because I am not sure that it is practical to lay a responsibility on Parliament. It is possible to lay a responsibility on the Secretary of State, the Education and Skills Committee or the chief inspector, but Parliament is a large and amorphous body, and I am unsure on whom the burden would fall.
 That is not my main point, which is to celebrate the achievement of Ofsted. It was one of the greatest educational achievements of the Conservative years in government and should be credited in no small way to the former chief inspector, Chris Woodhead. He took what was a brilliant idea—I will not weary the Committee with recitations of my involvement, because it was relatively small—and made it work for the overall good of the education system. He introduced an element of rigour into the inspection process, which made it clearly objective and widely recognised. I understand that many people disliked the inspection process; some had good cause, because they deserved to be found out.

Phil Willis: We cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with talking such utter nonsense. It was not the inspection regime to which people objected, but the style of the former chief inspector. He deliberately set out to demonise the process and ruin the careers and lives of many good teachers throughout the country. They fell foul of a regime that was draconian, oppressive and deliberately designed to cause confrontation in schools up and down the land.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us keep to the amendment and not start discussing one particular individual.

Andrew Turner: I gladly accede to your ruling, Mr. Pike.
 Miraculously, information has reached me about on whom the burden of the amendment would fall. It would fall on Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools for England. In the circumstances, to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, of a chief inspector demonising the profession, terrifying teachers and frightening them out of their jobs, and up-ending schools for his own selfish pleasure and entertainment, the burden would fall on Her Majesty's chief inspector himself. I do not see that as an effective means of reviewing the future of Ofsted. That is a good enough reason for rejecting the amendment. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertions about the intentions of an individual. We must not discuss such intentions. Some schools should have been inspected because they deserved to be found out. 
 Some teachers found the inspection process unduly daunting for two reasons. First, they were given too much notice of the arrival of the inspection, so their head teachers and governors could rewrite every conceivable document in the school. The threat of scrutiny was often over-emphasised. Secondly, local authorities saw it as part of their role to provide, at a 
 price, a pre-inspection inspection. What could be more daunting than to know that inspectors were on their way, and that there were to be two inspections? 
 I welcome the changes that would reduce the notice given for inspection. Since Ofsted was created, it has proved to be effective and has demonstrably improved standards, assisted the Government in their policy of improving failing schools and identified failing local education authorities that have contributed to the failure of our schools. It is recognised for those achievements in many other countries, such as Holland, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) recently visited. A rigorous inspection process is essential. We all hope that, one day, parents will have a transparent means of judging the quality of schools so we can get rid of that quango, as we have so many in the past, but we still have a long way to go.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough argued for a process of continual review of the inspection system and the framework, but the amendment would create a rigid, five-year, periodic big bang approach. I agree more with his speech than the amendment. The chief inspector already has a statutory duty to keep the system of regular school inspection under review. The record shows that the system has evolved since it was introduced in 1992. Recently, short inspections for the most effective schools, and a reduction to the notice given before inspection have been introduced, which will avoid a lengthy build-up of anxiety, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight pointed out. In the past few weeks, an external complaints adjudicator has been added to the system. The system is capable of being, and is being, continually modified and improved.
 Last autumn, Ofsted conducted a review of the system. It consulted on a wide range of proposals to make inspection more responsive to the different circumstances and priorities of schools. That consultation was well received and it intends to implement those proposals from next year. As the head of a non-ministerial Government Department—not a quango; it is not a non-departmental public body—Her Majesty's chief inspector is directly accountable to Parliament for the management of Ofsted and for the public funds it administers. In practice, that scrutiny operates principally through the Education and Skills Committee, which is chaired by a Member not normally regarded as someone who responds without questioning to Government advice—quite rightly; he is an independent figure. Whether he would like to have my job, as has been suggested, I do not know. I suspect that that is not the case. That scrutiny is an effective way for Parliament to monitor what the inspection system is achieving.

Graham Brady: Without passing comment on the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), does the Minister agree that it set an unfortunate precedent that his two immediate predecessors as chair of the Education and Skills Committee were made Ministers in the Department that they were previously meant to scrutinise?

Stephen Timms: I do not think that is an unfortunate precedent. No doubt there have been plenty of instances of that happening in the past. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) speaks rightly from a sedentary position. The fact that someone becomes a Minister at a future point does not affect his independence as Chair of the Select Committee.
 Arrangements have been put in place for the chief inspector to appear before the Select Committee twice a year. That is an opportunity for regular parliamentary scrutiny of the inspection system. He is next due to appear in March. 
 The Select Committee asked for a quinquennial review of Ofsted. The Government's response was that non-ministerial Government Departments do not have quinquennial reviews but non-departmental public bodies do. That proposal is rather different from that in the amendment, which provides for the whole system and framework of inspection to be reviewed every five years. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will agree that the model of continual review for which he argued rather than rigid five-yearly reviews is the right one to have in place. It is currently in place and I hope that he will feel it is appropriate to leave it as it is.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for his measured comments. I argued strongly that schools should implement the constant review process. That is extremely valuable; the Government should take up that issue and Ofsted should encourage it and inspect those systems. That applies also to local authorities.
 I agree with the assessment of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. The chief inspector, as head of Ofsted, would have to report to the Secretary of State under the terms of my amendment. That report would then come under scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament in the most appropriate way. If that had previously been the case, some of the work of the former chief Inspector would have been dealt with. Some of the excesses would have been dealt with. The current system of evaluating Ofsted's work through its chief inspector's annual meeting with the Select Committee is wholly inadequate, irrespective of whether this or the previous Government are in power. 
 The Select Committee has no teeth. I was a member of that Committee and remember the former chief inspector simply saying that he did not agree and walking out—end of story. He then submitted his written response. He did all that to dismiss anything that the Committee said. We cannot have such a situation and, to be fair, Mike Tomlinson, the next chief inspector, had a different style. He took the Select Committee's comments on board and was able to make progress. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is right. Until we have confidence in the Select Committee and its ability to scrutinise and make recommendations, the system will not be able to move forward. 
 I accept the Minister's comments, but I hope that in his discussions with the new chief inspector, he will bear in mind some of my comments about the continual improvement system, in which the Office 
 for Standards in Education should engage. I also hope that the new chief inspector will continue on the path of listening to others and will continue to improve the Ofsted process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 308, in page 176, line 29, leave out
'In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to that Act'
 and insert 
'Schedule 1 to that Act (Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In paragraph 1'.'

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 309, in page 176, line 32, at end insert—
'(3) In paragraph 2(3) (arrangements for persons other than staff to assist Chief Inspector require agreement of Treasury or National Assembly), for ''the Treasury'' there is substituted ''the Minister for the Civil Service or (in the case of the Chief Inspector for Wales) the National Assembly for Wales''.'

Stephen Timms: The amendments tidy up the clause and will ensure that the legislation catches up with changes that have been made elsewhere. Amendment No. 309 refers to the Minister for the Civil Service rather than the Treasury.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister explain amendment No. 308? If the amendment takes effect, line 29 of page 176 will read:
''Schedule 1 to that Act (Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1 (power of Chief Inspector to appoint staff with the approval of Treasury or National Assembly), for ''the Treasury'' there is substituted ''the Minister for the Civil Service or (in the case of the Chief Inspector for Wales) the National Assembly for Wales''.
 The first two lines do not make any sense.

Stephen Timms: They make sense, although I was slightly lost by the hon. Gentleman opening all those brackets and quotation marks. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman looks again at that series of brackets, quotation marks and words, he will think that it makes sense. The intention behind amendment No. 308 is to enhance the readability of the text in the light of amendment No. 309. Nevertheless, I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's concern, confident that I will be reassured when I do so.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 309, in page 176, line 32, at end insert— 
'(3) In paragraph 2(3) (arrangements for persons other than staff to assist Chief Inspector require agreement of Treasury or National Assembly), for ''the Treasury'' there is substituted ''the Minister for the Civil Service or (in the case of the Chief Inspector for Wales) the National Assembly for Wales''.'—[Mr. Timms.]
 Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 - Amendments of Part 5 of Education Act 1997

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 560, in page 176, line 36, leave out paragraph 1.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 561, in page 177, line 2, at end insert 'types of'.
 No. 562, in page 177, line 4, leave out 'excessive' and insert 'reasonable'. 
 No. 563, in page 177, line 8, after 'approve', insert '(including terms of payment)'. 
 No. 564, in page 177, line 14, at end insert— 
' ''(3B) Where the Authority shall exercise its powers later than at the time of accreditation, it shall give not less than 180 days notice of such changes to the producer of such qualification.''.'.
 No. 565, in page 177, line 14, at end insert— 
' ''(3C) Where the Authority shall exercise its powers later than at the time of accreditation the Authority shall bear the costs of any such changes, to the awarding body or educational institutions.''.'.
 No. 566, in page 177, line 22, leave out subparagraph (ii).

Graham Brady: In view of the topicality of these matters, it may be as well if I characterise these amendments as probing amendments, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford yesterday called for a wide-ranging inquiry into examination boards and their performance. It would be unwise to pre-empt the Government's acceptance of that request, given that there is considerable uncertainty on a number of fronts.
 The amendment seeks to probe the Government's intentions in regard to the examination boards and the powers that will be given to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Amendment No. 560 questions the Government's thinking on competition in the provision of examinations. By removing subsection (1) it would remove the power to reduce the choice of examinations available. The fundamental question is whether the Government believe that the best way to guarantee standards is to have a single provider and a limited choice of examinations—a route that might risk the problems that arose in Scotland 18 months ago where the whole system was subject to difficulties—or to have diversity and leave it to schools to decide which examinations offer the best standards and the best opportunities. 
 There is some concern that, perversely, competition drives standards down because there is an incentive for people to seek easier exams to get better apparent performance by achieving better grades. I sat Joint Matriculation Board A-level general studies. I apologise to the Committee for raising the matter and I would not do so had I not achieved an A grade. But at that point the better universities in the country—the northern universities—accepted that the quality of that exam was such that it was equivalent to an A-level in other subjects. They did not normally accord that status to other general studies A-level syllabuses. There is at least a possibility that where it is known that there is sufficient rigour in an examination 
 the competition process could operate in the normal way to raise standards rather than depress them. 
 Amendment No. 561 would replace the phrase 
''the number of different accredited qualifications''
 in proposed subsection (2A) of section 24 of the Education Act 1997 with 
''the number of different types of accredited qualifications''.
 Again, we are trying to ensure that choice remains available in the number and spectrum of qualifications on offer without allowing too much confusion in the system. 
 I accept that the danger with having too many types of examination or qualification is that those who depend on them to make decisions, such as the further or higher admissions authorities or employers, may become confused about the validity or worth of certain qualifications. However, including the words ''types of'' would aim at ensuring that, although the range of different types of qualification was limited, it remained possible to set a number of different accredited qualifications in similar subject areas to allow the proper diversity of curriculum and syllabus. I think that Ministers accept that that would be positive. 
 I do not know whether I am putting my hand up to a drafting error or pointing the finger at other people, but those who have been following our proceedings with particular attention will notice that amendment No. 562 would make more sense if it used the word ''unreasonable'' rather than ''reasonable''. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight picked that up immediately. 
 The amendment is designed to probe the Minister's definition of an ''excessive'' number of qualifications, because the new subsection refers to 
''ensuring that the number of different accredited qualifications in similar subject areas or serving similar functions is not excessive''.
 That is not defined and it is difficult to know what would constitute an excessive number. It would be better to ensure that the number was not unreasonable than to rely on the rather odd test of what was or was not excessive. 
 Amendment No. 563 deals with the powers regarding terms of payment for examinations. As I understand it, the Bill allows for the ability effectively to veto the terms of payment proposed by an examination board. Surely that is a matter for agreement between the board and its customers—unless Ministers envisage and possibly want to encourage the development of a monopoly provider. If so, one could see the logic of intervention powers on charges for particular examinations. 
 Amendment No. 564 raises a potential concern of examination boards, those sitting examinations and the educational institutions in which they sit them. It would introduce a requirement to give notice of at least 180 days if accreditation were to be removed from a qualification. The logic behind the amendment is that accreditation should not be removed during a period of study. At the very least, sufficient notice should be given, either so the examination board can take steps to rectify any problems or so that students and education institutions can take proper, reasonable 
 steps to change the curriculum that they are studying or secure other appropriate examinations. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned accordingly till this day at half-past Two o'clock.